Should misinformation be banned from the major platforms?

[Daedalus X]

For this topic misinformation is any information that promotes needle hesitancy or anti authoritarian approved information.

Here is an example of misinformation that can't be posted to YouTube, twitter, Facebook or any mainline medium. Is this good public policy?



This is a MUST WATCH.

https://www.therealanthonyfaucimovie.com/viewing/

[Daedalus X]

First, you do realize that "LGBTQ" refers to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (e.g., non-binary) people, right? So someone who is bisexual may still fit in one of the binary male/female categories for sex and/or gender, and just be sexually attracted to both men and women.

Yes.

Second, how exactly do you know that none of those people "have no genetic reason" to be who they are?

I don't know. But so far 23 and me can't tell people if they are LGBTQ+2etc or not.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #285]

"Persistent Mullerian Duct Syndrome (PMDS) is a very rare condition with less than 300 cases described in the literature"

There is not much point in talking about extremely rare genetic anomalies.

Can you tell me what percentage of LGBT... people actually do carry some form of genetic anomalies? And how many of those people can we expect to reproduce those same genetic anomalies?

People with genetic anomalies don't matter now? What is the percentage cut-off? Less than 2%? That would include people with green eyes, Jews, people with Downs syndrome, Dwarfism, etc.

What else should we know about your feelings towards people?

Okay, if your concern is about 300 people, of the 7 billion plus people in the world, then that is fine. They need advocates as well. But, I am more concerned with the larger group of people that make up to near 40% of the young that have no genetic reason to call themselves LGBTQ+ plus etc.

So, you're an "All Lives Matter" person? Be concerned with whatever you want, I'm not talking about advocacy (though that is important), I'm talking about a group of human beings who simply do not fall within the majority of gender expressions.

I honestly see you guys freaking about something that isn't a thing. Sure, there are wackos all over, but there are normal people who are trying to live their lives in peace - and then bigots start telling them how they ought to live their life because the bigots have strict rules on categorizing things.

More importantly, science tells us gender is more than those strict categories.

And, honestly, I have no idea where you get the idea that 40% of "the young" have no genetic reason to call themselves LGBTQ+. Who are you to declare that?

[Jose Fly]

First, you do realize that "LGBTQ" refers to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (e.g., non-binary) people, right? So someone who is bisexual may still fit in one of the binary male/female categories for sex and/or gender, and just be sexually attracted to both men and women.

Yes.

So since "LGBTQ+" includes a pretty diverse set of sexualities, preferences, genders, etc., plus how the survey was specifically of college students, which is often a time of "sexual exploration" of sorts, it's not all that surprising to see 38% of them self-identify as LGBTQ+. Will that persist into later adulthood? We'll just have to wait and see.

Second, how exactly do you know that none of those people "have no genetic reason" to be who they are?

I don't know. But so far 23 and me can't tell people if they are LGBTQ+2etc or not.

Then your claim that they "have no genetic reason" to be LGBTQ+ is baseless and can be summarily dismissed.

[Jose Fly]

I honestly see you guys freaking about something that isn't a thing. Sure, there are wackos all over, but there are normal people who are trying to live their lives in peace - and then bigots start telling them how they ought to live their life because the bigots have strict rules on categorizing things.

Sadly, that's been the case with every civil rights battle. As a group of people start to make progress on achieving equal status and treatment, there's an inevitable backlash that comes with cries of how surely letting "those people" live freely and as equal citizens will doom society to a quick end.

Blacks being free, blacks being allowed to vote, women being allowed to vote, interracial couples being allowed to marry, Muslims being allowed to be Muslims, Jews holding public office, Catholics holding public office, gays being allowed to marry....all were predicted to lead to the demise of society.

Now the backlash is against trans people being allowed to live openly and freely, and make their own private medical decisions in consultation with their doctors. Of course the ultimate irony is that many of the people trying to prevent that also claim to hold "small government" views. Obviously that's a rather selective philosophy, in that it's "small government towards me, but big intrusive government towards you".

[boatsnguitars]

I honestly see you guys freaking about something that isn't a thing. Sure, there are wackos all over, but there are normal people who are trying to live their lives in peace - and then bigots start telling them how they ought to live their life because the bigots have strict rules on categorizing things.

Sadly, that's been the case with every civil rights battle. As a group of people start to make progress on achieving equal status and treatment, there's an inevitable backlash that comes with cries of how surely letting "those people" live freely and as equal citizens will doom society to a quick end.

Blacks being free, blacks being allowed to vote, women being allowed to vote, interracial couples being allowed to marry, Muslims being allowed to be Muslims, Jews holding public office, Catholics holding public office, gays being allowed to marry....all were predicted to lead to the demise of society.

Now the backlash is against trans people being allowed to live openly and freely, and make their own private medical decisions in consultation with their doctors. Of course the ultimate irony is that many of the people trying to prevent that also claim to hold "small government" views. Obviously that's a rather selective philosophy, in that it's "small government towards me, but big intrusive government towards you".

This seems very true. It appears the Right has moved on from Homosexuality. That was their last Moral Outrage - but too many Conservatives have gay people in their families and they've realized they aren't so scary. In fact, some Conservatives have come to love gay people (Log Cabin Republicans).
So, they've moved on the the next vulnerable population.

They aren't railing against Presidents who try coups, or cops murdering people in the street, or CEO's making ungodly amounts of money while the workers can't feed their families - they go after Bob who feels he's a boy, wants to be a man, but was born with a vagina. To them, that's more morally outrageous than all the other ills in society.

Meanwhile, it's the Right Wing/Conservatives causing all the problems around the world. Liberals have always been attacked - then, when their position is accepted - the Right Wing pretends they were always for it: Slavery is a great example. It was a Liberal Idea, the Conservatives fought against Abolition - but now it's hard to find many Conservatives who support slavery (but many do).

This really is Women's Vote, Black Vote, Civil Rights, Gay Marriage, etc. all over again.

I imagine next will be people who get gene therapy, or clones, or Androids, etc..

Haters gotta hate.

[Jose Fly]

This seems very true. It appears the Right has moved on from Homosexuality. That was their last Moral Outrage - but too many Conservatives have gay people in their families and they've realized they are so scary.
So, they've moved on the the next vulnerable population.

And Latino immigrants and Asians (including Asian Americans).

They aren't railing against Presidents who try coups, or cops murdering people in the street, or CEO's making ungodly amounts of money while the workers can't feed their families - they go after Bob who feels he's a boy, wants to be a man, but was born with a vagina. To them, that's more morally outrageous than all the other ills in society.

'Cause those people are usually among the conservative tribe. Conservatives tend to be extremely tribal. The polar opposite approaches to Clinton and Trump on marital infidelity showed that in spades.

This really is Women's Vote, Black Vote, Civil Rights, Gay Marriage, etc. all over again.

I imagine next will be people who get gene therapy, or clones, or Androids, etc..

It'll be some minority group that starts to fight for personal freedom and equality. As soon as they start making gains, there will be a conservative backlash...guaranteed.

[Daedalus X]

Then your claim that they "have no genetic reason" to be LGBTQ+ is baseless and can be summarily dismissed.

If there were a genetic predisposition that predicted LGBTQ+, then you would know about it, if you don't know then the claim is not entirely baseless. As we now have the ability to find such a predisposition given all the people that have been sequenced.

[Jose Fly]

Then your claim that they "have no genetic reason" to be LGBTQ+ is baseless and can be summarily dismissed.

If there were a genetic predisposition that predicted LGBTQ+, then you would know about it, if you don't know then the claim is not entirely baseless. As we now have the ability to find such a predisposition given all the people that have been sequenced.

No, that's completely wrong. Just because we have sequences doesn't mean we know what they do, how they interact with each other, how they're regulated, how they're expressed in different groups, how they're affected by the environment, what variability exists across the population, etc.

Your logic of "if there were a genetic basis for being LGBTQ+ we would know about it" assumes we have a complete understanding of all of the above. Since that isn't reality at all (we don't even know what all the sequences do), your logic is faulty and your assertion can be dismissed.

[Daedalus X]

And, honestly, I have no idea where you get the idea that 40% of "the young" have no genetic reason to call themselves LGBTQ+.

Is there a gene or genes found in this population that is not found in the straight population?

[Daedalus X]

assumes we have a complete understanding of all of the above.

We don't have to understand what any genes do. We simply need to look at the genes of a large population divided into straight and LGBTQ+, and let a computer analyze them for patterns that are common in one group but not in the other. Then we will have a good suspect. But no such pattern has been found.